A review of my book Trend Following was posted by Cedric Spahr at Credit Suisse:
“The author glosses for over 400 pages about anecdotes and general statements about trend following managers and investment strategies. The book is completely bereft of any original insight about how to design and implement a trend following strategy. If you look for something serious on the topic of managed futures funds, avoid this needless work by any means.”
My first thoughts were to ask Spahr questions: Where did you learn about trend following? How did you learn about what’s in the pages of my book if not from my book? Were you trained in all of this information by Credit Suisse? You talked to all of these traders? You learned the content of my book from another book?
If Spahr wants to write a hatchet review he should put his cards on the table and be honest about his intentions. Why say that? For comparison readers should consider views from those who think quite differently about the content of ‘Trend Following.’ So are all of those other reviewers just morons? Is that what Spahr believes?
The one repeatable pattern I have seen is that whenever a brief negative review appears there is always more to the story. For example, here is Cedric Spahr giving a rambling fundamental view:Spahr sounds like every other empty suit who has ever graced CNBC (and in no way sounds like a trend follower). His kind of dribble talk is why so many people have been sunk over the last few years.
However, don’t get me wrong I want the Spahr criticism. As Nassim Taleb has said correctly:
“When I don’t receive criticism from finance people & empty suits I feel I am doing something wrong.”
At the end of the day Cedric Spahr is just another brick in the wall. Another kid on a conveyor belt headed toward the meat grinder. Roger Waters paints the timeless picture of conformity in Spahr’s world: